Rethinking my support for military adventurism

[Ron]

I came of age during the "Reagan revolution", HS class of '82.

Supporting a strong defense/military made sense and we saw the results, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the USSR.

Walking softly and carrying a big stick seemed to be what Reagan was trying to emulate and I agreed with it wholeheartedly. It worked.

I did not vote for GHB in '88, didn't trust him, nope, not one bit. I voted for libertarian candidate Ron Paul. With the specter of Clinton being elected I did cast my vote for GHB the second time.

After the collapse of the USSR I became increasingly isolationist where it concerned military adventurism. I wanted to see an orderly many decades long draw down of US troops from around the world. I rejected what we would now call the "Team America World Police" foreign policy model.

Of course I was supportive of the administration and the military during the 1st gulf war. Truth be told though I was never a proponent of the whole thing and only threw 100% of my support into it after we had boots on the ground. Even with the overwhelming victory against Iraq I wished and hoped for the draw down and disengagement militarily from all these far flung places that have dubious national security grounds for our presence.

After that between Bosnia and Somalia I began to harden my position about this empire like behavior where we try and be the "order maker" everywhere chaos breaks out, whether we're wanted or not.

Then 9/11, sigh, all my ideas go out the window in favor of sticking our boot up the ass of the middle east. Afghanistan? I was happy with the initial tact we took there and was glad Bush wasn't going to plant tens of thousands there in a futile nation building exercise, so far so good.

Iraq, after my initial squeamishness about it I bought into the concept of having troops on all sides of Iran, seemed like a sound plan, surround the real enemy.

Fast forward to now.

I don't really think the middle east (sans Israel) is worth our blood and treasure.

Upon reflection I can't help but think a contraction of action and a build up of ability and capacity for war would be a better course of action than our present predicament. Of course I realize we have learned more waging war than we could ever hope to understand from a more isolationist stance. Yet I can't shake this nagging thought that we shouldn't be waging these wars just so others don't.

A draw down of our forces across the globe making it clear to friend and foe alike that this is done under the flag of "Don't tread on me" seems to be more in our self interest as a nation than trying to put out conflagrations all across the world in the name of world peace.

I just throw this out there because I've come to trust the knowledge/wisdom bank here at APS.

Truth be told I'm tired, I'm fatigued of hearing about our troops dieing and inadvertently killing civilians all in the cause of causes that are several layers removed from what is obviously defense of our nation.

I cannot even imagine the toll on those who are on the front line wherever that may be :(

  

[mtnbkr]

I've gone through pretty much the same thought process and decided I too am an Isolationist several months ago.  I was listening to a podcast last week and the guy made two points I thought were pretty good: We've played right into the trap OBL said all along he was trying to draw us into and Both sides are so completely invested into their worldview, they will reject an argument simply because it comes from their political opponent regardless of merit.

Chris

[Perd Hapley]

So at one time you two supported military adventurism?   

[mtnbkr]

No, I think we would have been better off if we had kept to ourselves and not gotten involved in the petty disputes of other nations after the cold war.

Chris

[Balog]

I tend to an all or nothing thought process.

From a national security standpoint (and honestly, from a greater good one too) I love full on Emperialism. If we had the balls for it, it would secure America as well as improve the lives of the people thus colonized. However....

We, as a civilization, do not have the intestinal fortitude for that. Therefore, I advocate for Isolationism. Secure the borders, don't hand out tens of billion in foreign aid, don't provide .mil support for every crap hole around the world, and decimate any place stupid enough to support striking at us. Adopt a "If your country either directly attacks us, or harbors and supports those who do, you have two choices. 1. Put the heads of those who made that decision on pikes as a warning to their successors to not follow in their footsteps or 2. watch your country either turned to glass or razed to the ground and sown with salt." policy. And then actually follow through on it.

[Ron]

So at one time you two supported military adventurism?    

The original Gulf War, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq all would be considered a couple degrees separated from being conflicts that were in our direct national security interests to get involved with, as does the current nation building exercise in Afghanistan.

None of them were immediate threats to our security save Afghanistan. Once AQ dissappeared into Pakistan we should have drawn down. Actually that is kind of what we did until Obama was elected.

I understand the rational for getting involved in those various conflicts but I'm not sure our proactive stance has really helped our national security. We took care of the immediate issue(s) and now have to deal with the cascading unintended consequences.

[French G.]

As a military member I am sad to say that all isolationism ever got us was two world wars. There will always be a time when we have to jump back in and we always do it too late and are un-prepared when the war starts.

Isolationism would be successful if the libertarian world view worked and everyone played nice in the street once the cop went home. Unfortunately, as soon as we leave the world stage someone much worse will take over. In the modern world there is no way we can just dig in at our beaches and let the rest of the world crash. The most obvious result would first be the corruption of the world markets by those with force and the will to use it, followed by no trade for us. There has to be a cop in the world, we do a pretty good job.

We are however lousy imperialists. Taking over countries then giving them back. Whatever happened to colonies?   

[RoadKingLarry]

Those that ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

Like French G says,an isolationist approach will not work now any better than it did in the '30s.
We can't/won't secure our borders, we can't/won't secure and use our own energy reserves and move toward energy independence. Untill we can provide for our selves by ourselves we can't afford to crawl into tour own yard and lock the gate.
If you look at the world as a big school playground you can understand how international politics works.
You will always have the tough guys that try to run the show. Since our playground monitor is the UN we are screwed if we let it go that way.
Someone is going to be top dog on the international playground. I'd just as soon it be us.

[AJ Dual]

The big problem I see is that we'd have to really cut off relations with Britain and abandon Israel.  We are "hated" over there as much for that as we are for our own direct actions in the region. Which means 9/11 may well have happened anyway.

Save a ton of money over all the bases in Europe? Sure. I have no idea why we are still there save institutional inertia and to be the 500lb gorilla in the room when it comes to NATO/EU issues. Japan has China and North Korea to deal with, so I see pulling out there as difficult.

The main problem is that in the face of Asymmetrical Warfare, we have to invade/pacify whole nations to engage minority terrorist interests.

If we could figure out some kind of strategy where we engage and kill the enemy, and don't give a crap about what kind of despotic regime is running the host nation and have to deal with nation-building etc., or just do a punitive air-raid, I'd be all for it, (Seems to have mostly worked on Lybia/Quadaffi...) but I have no idea how that's done.

It's possible our military adventurisim has created a "bug light" effect in terms of Jihad. And other nations seeing Iraq and Afghanistan may be less likely to provide material support.

OTOH, "them coming here to shoot up malls and schools would be easy" seems kind of absurd when you put the shoe on the other foot, and you decide that you're going to go to some completely foreign country like China where you don't understand the language, customs, or culture, and within a year you have to start blowing and shooting stuff up. Not as easy as it seems looking from the outside in.

Honestly, I think if we could have gone Switzerland after the Soviet Union disbanded, we'd have gotten sucked into all of this, or worse, somehow, some-when anyway. The lead dog always has everyone else nipping at it's heels.

[Balog]

Nukes and precision guided conventional munitions make isolationism easier. Tell Foreign Leader X "Kill the terrorists in your backyard or else either your contry will be a sheet of glass or a JDAM will be dropped on your head," then actually do it and suddenly we don't need to be the world's police anymore.

RKL: we could pretty easily secure the border and achieve energy independence. We merely lack the will. If that changes...

[MicroBalrog]

Like French G says,an isolationist approach will not work now any better than it did in the '30s.

America was not isolationist in the 1930's.

[makattak]

America was not fully isolationist in the 1930's.

FTFY

And, would the world have turned out differently if we were?

My guess is it would. Hitler would have finished off Britain without our aid.

[Ron]

America was not isolationist in the 1930's.

I'm not sure if there is a period of time in history where we weren't exporting our power militarily.

The empire is so large it is draining resources and energy from back home.

Even a mild contraction of our footprint and a period of inactivity would be preferable to this continual engagement in war.

The only arguments in favor of this nonstop war are "it would be worse if we didn't do this". How do you argue against that? It is like debating Obama when he says the recession and joblessness would have been worse without the stimulus.

[Jamisjockey]

My opinion is somewhere in the middle.  To some degree we have to protect our own interests.  But getting involved in many of the conflicts we have has earned us nothing but hatred around the world.  And, staying involved in those conflicts is often IMHO bad policy.  Even in Afghanistan, once we ousted the Taliban and killed off a crapload of AQ, that should be it.  If they poke us again with a stick, we kill tens of thousands of them.  I'd rather see Kabul carpetbombed for harboring those schmucks than one more bright, tough, well trained soldier, sailor, airman or Marine killed in that shitsack.

[MechAg94]

Compared to the internal social programs and other money pits, the costs of our military operations and all the foreign aide we give is pretty small.  It is those other internal programs that are a bigger drain our wealth.

I'm all for cutting off a lot of the foreign aide (at least to all but our closest allies).  I think much of it gets wasted and diverted.  

I think the main idea is to maintain a strong, well equipped, and well trained military.  Even if we never use them, maintaining that is a must.  I think that is the lesson from the 1930's.  Too many people seemed to think we were weak.  

[Ben]

I'm with what both French and Jamis said on this. I'm at heart, philosophically, an isolationist. It makes a lot of sense based on my personal philosophy of "you don't bother me and I won't bother you".

Practically though, based on everything from the state of world affairs today to technology, including warfare technology, I'm not sure that we cannot have at least some hand in affairs elsewhere in the world for our own protection. We also, as a culture, have generally had a, "protect the little guy from the bully" philosophy. I like that we have that philosophy as a country, though I admit they we have over (or perhaps mis) used it on occasions.

I certainly think we could pull back a great deal from where we are now, but I don't think we could ever become an isolationist country (at least not in our current form of government).

[Balog]

The empire is so large it is draining resources and energy from back home.

We're the exact opposite of an empire. An empire draws resources from those it conquers. America sends it's sons to die, pisses away it's wealth, and reaps nothing but contempt from those we "help." We're extending the welfare state to the rest of the world, with predictable results.

[Ben]

I'm all more cutting off a lot of the foreign aid (at least to all but our closest allies).  I think much of it gets wasted and diverted. 

This I'm absolutely in favor of starting yesterday. I wonder if more than 50% of the aid we send to anyone for anything has ever gotten to the intended target.

Stepping into another country's affairs to stop a genocide is one thing, sending billions for food and medicine, that gets turned into palaces, well, teach a man to fish and all that...

[longeyes]

Isolationism is not the answer to "adventurism."  There is a difference between defending one's legitimate interests at a distance and needlessly and foolishly stirring up hornet's nests abroad.  Adventurism implies the politicization of the application of military force by corrupt regimes with confused and toxic goals.  Let's not confuse that with the dissemination of material prosperity through trade and open exchange of ideas.  We have "adventurists" in our culture (and certainly in the sub-culture of the State Dept.); we need to "isolate" them and get to the heart of what's going on there and why, who designs the policies, most importantly who really benefits from them.  My view is we've had a government within a government for a long, long time, and until we turn over enough rocks we will continue to undermine the general national interest.

I realize there's a certain weariness settling in, culturally speaking, but this is the result of misguided interactions, not interaction itself.  It seems naive to me to try and isolate ourselves from "trouble;" Trouble, make no mistake about it, is coming after us, and we'd better be ready for it.

[MechAg94]

This I'm absolutely in favor of starting yesterday. I wonder if more than 50% of the aid we send to anyone for anything has ever gotten to the intended target.

Stepping into another country's affairs to stop a genocide is one thing, sending billions for food and medicine, that gets turned into palaces, well, teach a man to fish and all that...

I think Micro has commented on what he thought was the waste and fraud in the Israeli military establishment.  We send them tons of money.

I have heard people mention that the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia wasn't what it was claimed to be.  That is one place where I think we need to just pull out. 

A lot of the 3rd world is the 3rd world for a reason.  Dumping money and supplies on those places is not going foster good govt.

[longeyes]

The debate on Afghanistan has become "stay till the end" or "go now."  Both positions are wrong.  In my view the Afghanistan theater is a war of attrition, attrition directed at our own military by people, inside and outside America, who do not have this nation's best interests at heart.  We know where the real enemy in all this lies but we don't want to deal with it in a forthright way.  This is like going after the local druglord by killing his guard dogs one at a time.  Now Hillary Clinton's answer is apparently to throw money at the Pakistani government.  We've been throwing money and blood to the wind for decades, since WW II, and what has it gotten us? Aim better is my advice, and use the power God gave you, while you still have it.

[HankB]

This week's news reported that about $9,000,000,000 in funds overseen by the military was unaccounted for. Nine. BILLION. Dollars. Nobody knows where it went, nobody knows how it was spent, and nobody thinks they'll ever find out.

Bernie Madoff went to jail for losing client's money - is anyone going to go down for this missing taxpayer money?

Do the powers-that-be (House, Senate, POTUS, appointed bureaucrats, etc.,) even WANT to get to the bottom of this?

Nope.

And I say it's because too many benefit - directly or indirectly - from shennanigans like this.

Why else would we go into places like Bosnia, Somalia, etc., where connection to actual U.S. interests is, at best, murky?

Heck, why else did we go into Vietnam, and deliberately avoid winning?

Follow the money. 

[longeyes]

Follow the money, yes.

Follow the poppies.  Follow the oil.

So many people have been bought and sold.  I resent our military used as mercenaries by corrupt politicians and businesspeople.

[Stand_watie]

     The only way we could ever have an effective isolationist/reactionist foreign policy would be for us to first find some way to change the idiot Sheehan/hollywood type mindsets that  infect so much of our nation. If George Bush had reacted that way to 9/11, they'd have burned our country to the ground before he ever got onto Iraq (and should have got onto Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, Syria etc).
     Teddy Roosevelt wasn't even a conservative, and he and the real Stand Watie are probably both in happy hunting ground shaking their heads and crying into their beer over the American "anti-war" movement and their "useful idiots".

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

We've been at war with the Sharia-fascists for decades, though most Americans didn't bother to take notice pre 9/11.  On 9/11 the war became impossible for us to ignore, so we started acting like a nation at war.  We resolved ourselves for a long, drawn out, grinding process to make the world safer for us, and we went to it.  We made plenty of mistakes along the way (hey, it's war, show me any war that was carried off perfectly), but we also made a helluva lot of progress.

Inevitably, our resolve has waned.  Now it seems that after only 9 years it is once again becoming possible to ignore the ongoing and unresolved war we're in.  People are starting to forget that when you don't go to the war, the war comes to you. 

If we leave Afghanistan without a stable, allied government in place, we're very likely to find that the region reverts back to a staging and launching ground for attacks against us.  Eventually one of the attacks will be wildly successful, killing an "unignorably" large number of our citizens, and we'll start all over again.

This war didn't start with our entry into Afghanistan, and it won't end with our exit from Afghanistan.  If we withdraw now, the war won't end, it'll simply shift from rural Afghanistan back to the streets of New York (or LA, or Dallas, or...).  We'll still be fighting them, only now it'll our unarmed/untrained/unequipped civilians rather than our mighty warriors who have to get up close and personal with the enemy.

I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to fight to win and not quit until we do.  That option just doesn't seem viable, we apparently don't have the fortitude to carry it out.  C'est la vie.